Switching from 400mm f5.6 to 300mm f4? (1 Viewer)

[Paul Collins]

I think you are an ecxeption or just simply overeacting.
I believe the second, but it doesn't matter.
If you really can 'handhold' it like that, it doesn't mean that many can do so.
So in this regard the 300 is better.
George

Actually agree with Peter Ericsson here - I've had a 400mm 5.6 for about 5 years and have taken a number of shots at 1/60 handheld that have come out razor sharp, even in pretty low forest light (admittedly might need a bit of practice, as everything does).

Fact is, it's a great quality lens that works superbly across the shutterspeed range. You can always just put on a tripod, if you want to guarantee sharpness at the lower shutter speeds.

 

[punta]

There is no way the 300/4 + 1.5x tc will be sharper/ better IQ than the bare 400/5.6 unless your long lens holding technique was suspect or the AF was way out and you needed to do some MA. To this end did you ever check the sharpness by mounting on a tripod and using a remote release or the built-in timer? Then you would be able to tell if it was user error or something wrong with the AF.
I do not have any birding lenses now but I never found the lack of IS any problem with the 400/5.6 (I have a couple of 4 stop IS lenses so do know what IS is about) it was just a case of working with what you have - with the 7D all you have to do is to stick it in Tv mode and Auto ISO and dialling in the shutter speed you were comfortable with - I am a weakling OAP but could get sharp shots hand held at around 1/800 sec no problem. Coupled with the fact that the 7D is fairly noise free up to ISO 1600 and getting good sharp shots with the combo was a snap.
Of course if you are shooting hand held and the light is too bad to get the shutter speed you want then you will struggle but I find it amazing that you could never really get sharp shots with a lens that is known to be one of Canon's sharpest lenses.

That's why it’s off to be calibrated. :t:

Always used it as you mention above Roy in TV mode, auto iso + a fast enough speed to hand hold. Also used in a hide resting on the window, but again JUST never got that sharpness I got in one outing with the 300, so I am pretty darn sure there is a problem.

I did try to do a micro adjustment as I thought I had a focus issue, even bought a spyder lens thingy. I ended up at +15 which seemed sharp, then tried at a different distance from the target and was out of sync again, set it at another adjustment, changed my distance and again it was all over the shop, so gave up confused.

Hopefully leaving it to the professionals will do the trick. Will let you know when I get it back.

 

[Roy C]

That's why it’s off to be calibrated. :t:

Lets hope that does the trick - have you sent you Camera as well so it can be calibrated as a pair? A lens can work fine on one body but no so good on another (AF wise that is). Having said that I have run MA on several of my lenses in the past inc with and without extenders and I have never had to move the MA off of zero, guess I am lucky!

 

[MiguelM]

I sold the 400mm f/5.6 and got the 300mm f/4 and I'm totally satisfied. Taking photos at 1/80 ISO 100 of small birds that were flying from branch to branch over a stream covered by trees without sunlight was a terrific feeling and my thoughts were "long live IS!"

Now I have to decide which teleconverter. Canon 1.4x mark III, Canon 1.4x mark II or Kenko PRO 300 AF DGX 1.4X

 

[Roy C]

I sold the 400mm f/5.6 and got the 300mm f/4 and I'm totally satisfied. Taking photos at 1/80 ISO 100 of small birds that were flying from branch to branch over a stream covered by trees without sunlight was a terrific feeling and my thoughts were "long live IS!"

IS is completely ineffective for moving subjects like flyers - in fact you would do better to switch IS off when doing these types of shots.

 

[MiguelM]

The bird would eventually rest on a tree branch and then I took the shot. With the conditions that were available, I wouldn't be able to do it with a 400mm f/5.6. I don't have hands of steel

 

[Roy C]

The bird would eventually rest on a tree branch and then I took the shot. With the conditions that were available, I wouldn't be able to do it with a 400mm f/5.6. I don't have hands of steel

There is nothing magic about IS (I have a couple of 4 stop IS lenses myself), it just that it allows you to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds than you could without the IS - if you could not get the shot with the 400/5.6 then it is down to user error as you were either shooting at too low a shutter speed or your long lens holding technique is poor. I am a weakling pensioner but found no problem in getting sharp shots hand held with the 400/5.6 when I had one its just a question of working with what you have got.

 

[punta]

There is nothing magic about IS (I have a couple of 4 stop IS lenses myself), it just that it allows you to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds than you could without the IS - if you could not get the shot with the 400/5.6 then it is down to user error as you were either shooting at too low a shutter speed or your long lens holding technique is poor. I am a weakling pensioner but found no problem in getting sharp shots hand held with the 400/5.6 when I had one its just a question of working with what you have got.

That's magic that is :-O

 

[Nikon Kid]

I think alot of people shoot small birds at a distance, then crop close in, and then blame the lens for the bad IQ, improve your field-craft and get much closer to the birds, of cause your speed and light should be right that goes without saying.....

BTW Merry Xmas everyone

 

[Weekend Birder]

This is the difference between the 300 f4 + 1.4x (canon mkIII) and the bare 100-400.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

For anyone not familiar with this site, just wiggle your cursor on and off, then back on the 100% crops. The arrow just above the images points to which lens you are viewing.

Of course, we have no idea how many different lenses they tried to get these crops, or the sample variation.

I'd take the 100-400 as sharper and more versatile from the posted results though.

Incidentally, this is a great site for prospective lens purchasers, check out the number of lenses in the dropdowns and below that are the teleconverter options (canon 1.4x and 2x mark II and mark III)

 

[johnf3f]

This is the difference between the 300 f4 + 1.4x (canon mkIII) and the bare 100-400.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

For anyone not familiar with this site, just wiggle your cursor on and off, then back on the 100% crops. The arrow just above the images points to which lens you are viewing.

Of course, we have no idea how many different lenses they tried to get these crops, or the sample variation.

I'd take the 100-400 as sharper and more versatile from the posted results though.

Incidentally, this is a great site for prospective lens purchasers, check out the number of lenses in the dropdowns and below that are the teleconverter options (canon 1.4x and 2x mark II and mark III)

I had the 100-400 for 5 1/2 years and loved it! Great colour, sharp images etc etc. Then I tried the 300 F4 L IS - ditched the 100-400 in a heartbeat!
I found the resolution and sharpness of the 300 allowed fairly vicious cropping, whereas the 100-400 allows little or none of this treatment. Also the 300 F4 gives pretty good results with a 1.4 extender (and ain't too bad with the Canon 2X Mk3 extender), which the 100-400 (IMO) does not.
This is not to knock the 100-400 (I certainly loved mine!) it is just that the 300 F4 L IS is a better all round Wildlife lens in my opinion.

 

[Weekend Birder]

Glad you're happy with the 300/4 John.

I've never tried it, but I find it hard to believe it could be sharper with a 1.4x than the 100-400 without one.

My 100-400 only gets the vicious cropping treatment and it holds up well.

There are threads that talk about sample variation with the 100-400 - it is quite a complex lens formula.

I did a little buying and selling of this lens for profit not too long ago and all 4 lenses I had were excellent

The 100-400 gives a wider range of focal length, but the 300/4 has a better mfd, and is a bit lighter.

I guess it just depends on what you are shooting and your ergonomics preference.

 

[Hor Kee]

Between the 100-400mm, 300mm f4 and 400mm 5.6, its a game of rock-paper-scissors really. Each is not perfect, so you may want to consider getting 2 of the 3 to get a great budget setup. Do note that all 3 of them combined are still cheaper than the 300mm 2.8 II which is the next step-up of Canon's L series telephotos.

 

[johnf3f]

Glad you're happy with the 300/4 John.

I've never tried it, but I find it hard to believe it could be sharper with a 1.4x than the 100-400 without one.

My 100-400 only gets the vicious cropping treatment and it holds up well.

There are threads that talk about sample variation with the 100-400 - it is quite a complex lens formula.

I did a little buying and selling of this lens for profit not too long ago and all 4 lenses I had were excellent

The 100-400 gives a wider range of focal length, but the 300/4 has a better mfd, and is a bit lighter.

I guess it just depends on what you are shooting and your ergonomics preference.

I did compare my 100-400 to other samples and mine seemed a little better, but not much.
I have not used the 1.4 extender much on the 300 F4 IS as when I wanted around 400mm I simply cropped and got a better image than the 100-400 at 400mm, if I wanted more reach then I took the 600.
Inevitably I have now moved to the 300 F2.8 IS (Mk1) and am very pleasantly surprised at what that will do with extenders. So there is a mintish 300 F4 L IS for sale!